Dynamic Strategy and Disruptive Innovation

DYNAMIC STRATEGY AND DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION
1

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
A. Internal perspective.....................................................................................................................3
B. External perspective....................................................................................................................4
C. Marketing perspective.................................................................................................................5
D. Technology perspective..............................................................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
Reference List..................................................................................................................................8
Reference List..................................................................................................................................8
2

Introduction
In this highly competitive and changing business environment, ability of an organisation to make
scope for implementation of new strategies has become crucial. Dynamic strategies therefore,
help in responding to such changes. This study emphasises on Millennium Health Sciences
(MHS) where there is need for applying dynamic organisational innovation.
A. Internal perspective
Analysis
From the given case study, it has been analysed that there are basically two business units within
MHS, each of which is headed by a General Manager. These managers in turn are responsible for
reporting to the CEO and Board of Directors. General Managers of Neutrino and Dermatech
have been provided with autonomy and are therefore, required to strictly supervise and control
these two business units. Considering these roles and responsibilities, it can therefore, be
mentioned that internal structure of this organisation is much like “top-down”. This means every
decision regarding selection of projects or appraisal within this organisation are to made by GMs
along with the senior executive team of two business units, then flow down towards the lower
level (Banks et al. 2016).
In accordance with the ideas of Bronzini and Piselli (2016), top-down approach of management
prioritises imperatives as well as vision of the upper management. This approach has
furthermore, been considered to be beneficial as it unifies an organisation in terms of one
purpose, direction and standard. On the contrary, Uhl and Gollenia (2016) argued that this
approach de-emphasizes on passive employees. This indicates that employees without power or
ownership have no scope for forecasting creativity.
MHS supports a culture where senior executives are directed to come up through ranks. For this,
most of the executives have been analysed to be having an extending working period. Average
age of the overall senior executive committee is 53 years with the next leadership close to this
age. From a different perspective, it is the fact that in case an individual has performed any
specified tasks for quite a long time then, he or she is likely to be a better match for a similar
position (Spieth and Schneider, 2016). However, the situation within MHS is contrasting with
3